Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MARTIN, J.:
Appeal on a question of law from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Palawan in Civil Case
No. 416, entitled "Delfin Lim and Jikil Taha vs. Francisco Ponce de Leon and Orlando Maddela",
dismissing the complaint of the plaintiffs and ordering them to pay each of the defendants jointly and
severally the sum of P500.00 by way of actual damages; P500.00 by way of attorney's fees; and
P1,000.00 by way of exemplary damages.
On April 29, 1961, plaintiff-appellant Jikil Taha sold to a certain Alberto Timbangcaya of Brooke's Point,
Palawan a motor launch named M/L "SAN RAFAEL". A year later or on April 9, 1962 Alberto
Timbangcaya filed a complaint with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Palawan alleging that after the
sale Jikil Taha forcibly took away the motor launch from him.
On May 14, 1962, after conducting a preliminary investigation, Fiscal Francisco Ponce de Leon in his
capacity as Acting Provincial Fiscal of Palawan, filed with the Court of First Instance of Palawan the
corresponding information for Robbery the Force and Intimidation upon Persons against Jikil Taha. The
case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 2719.
On June 15, 1962, Fiscal Francisco Ponce de Leon, upon being informed that the motor launch was in
Balabac, Palawan, wrote the Provincial Commander of Palawan requesting him to direct the
1
detachment commander-in Balabac to impound and take custody of the motor launch.
On June 26, 1962, Fiscal Ponce de Leon reiterated his request to the
Provincial Commander to impound the motor launch, explaining that its
subsequent sale to a third party, plaintiff-appellant Delfin Lim, cannot prevent
the court from taking custody of the same. 2 So, on July 6, 1962 upon order of
the Provincial Commander, defendant-appellee Orlando Maddela,
1 thil lozada
2 thil lozada
search warrant. And for a search warrant to be valid: (1) it must be issued
upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the
judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the
determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or
affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce;
and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be
searched and persons or things to be seized. 4 Thus in a long line of
decisions, this Court has declared invalid search warrants which were issued
in utter disregard of the constitutional injunction. 5
Defendants-appellees admitted that when Orlando Maddela entered the
premises of Delfin Lim and impounded the motor launch he was not armed
with a search warrant; that he effected the seizure of the motor launch in the
absence of and without the consent of Delfin Lim. There can be no question
that without the proper search warrant, no public official has the right to enter
the premises of another without his consent for the purpose of search and
seizure. 6 And since in the present case defendants-appellees seized the
motor launch without a warrant, they have violated the constitutional right of
plaintiffs-appellants against unreasonable search and seizure.
Defendants-appellees however would want to justify the seizure of the motor
launch even without a warrant because of Fiscal Ponce de Leon's alleged
inherent power to order the seizure of a personal property which is the
corpus delicti of a crime, he being a quasi judicial officer who has the control
of the prosecution and the presentation of the evidence in the criminal case.
They argue that inasmuch as the motor launch in question was allegedly
stolen by Jikil Taha from Timbangcaya, Fiscal Ponce de Leon could order its
seizure even without a search warrant. We cannot agree. Under the old
Constitution 7 the power to issue a search warrant is vested in a judge or
magistrate and in no other officer and no search and seizure can be made
without a proper warrant. At the time the act complained of was committed,
there was no law or rule that recognized the authority of Provincial Fiscals to
issue a search warrant. In his vain attempt to justify the seizure of the motor
launch in question without a warrant Fiscal Ponce de Leon invoked the
provisions of Republic Act No. 732, which amended Sections 1674 and 1687
of the Revised Administrative Code. But there is nothing in said law which
confers upon the provincial fiscal; the authority to issue warrants, much less
to order without warrant the seizure of a personal property even if it is the
corpus delicti of a crime. True, Republic Act No. 732 has broadened the
power of provincial fiscals to conduct preliminary investigations, but said law
did not divest the judge or magistrate of its power to determine, before
issuing the corresponding warrant, whether or not probable cause exists
therefor. 8
complement the constitutional provision earlier cited, two principles are made clear, namely: (1) that in
the seizure of a stolen property search warrant is still necessary; and (2) that in issuing a search
warrant the judge alone determines whether or not there is a probable cause. The fact that a thing is a
corpus delicti of a crime does not justify its seizure without a warrant. As held in U.S. v. de los Reyes
10
and Esguerra,
citing McClurg v. Brenton: 11
3 thil lozada
4 thil lozada